Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:56:08 -0500 From: "Randall Hamilton" <nitedog@silly.pikachu.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>, "GB Clark II" <gclarkii@vsservices.com>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <000901c17892$28e1ce90$0301a8c0@nitedog> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > There is nothing that I know of in the Windows > > architecture (outside of having a graphics > > sub-system in the kernel) that makes it any better. > > That's like saying, "There's nothing I know of in a car that makes it better > than a horse, except that it goes faster." Having a good GUI is all it takes, > in this case. i would personally question the term 'good'. Windows is semi useful for a wide range of tasks that are dependant upon the said GUI. I would not go as far as to say they make the GUI itself better. > > Please point those parts of the Windows > > architecture that make is superior as a desktop > > system. > > See above. The lack of a multiuser environment is usually an advantage as well, > along with the heavy integration with the hardware (both of these are to the > detriment of security, but desktop users don't care about security). I agree..the clueless people/drones that use it get hacked enough WITHOUT it being a multiuser OS....why increase that amount exponantually by making it a multiuser OS? > > The only thing Windows has going for it is good > > salesmanship and many of applications. > > "Many" meaning 100,000 applications, including all of the leading applications. > That's enough! another point i agree on! i mean...where WOULD we be without 90% of those 100k applications...most of them doing advanced...critical things like displaying purty screensavers...or having moving eyes follow your mouse on the famous GUI? modern socity as we know it would fall. > > Yes, Windows 2000 comes alot closer, but my brother= > > inlaw still reboots his 2000 box many more times > > than I do under FreeBSD. > > Windows NT/2000 systems run for years in stable environments. Desktop users > tend to run a lot of junk, much of which has to be trusted by the OS, and that > crashes systems. NT and stable in the same sentance? did not expect to hear that....but in all honesty...you are correct. win NT does indeed run for years. its just slow and stable...not to mention useless as a workstation. other then that..you are right on the money. > > And then you lose the one area where Windows has > > any benifits, game playing. > > That is yet another of many benefits; I've described some of the others already. thats the number one benifit that i can see..then again..I'm a networking admin..i see little use for cosmetic crap like addon fancy GUI's and lame formating(gooo ms word!). I will say windows 2000 is a better desktop...and personally...i would rather not see freebsd in the desktop arena. It's a great server OS...doing many things windows cannot even remotly touch to date. Let the cluebies run the desktops...the clued can run the servers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000901c17892$28e1ce90$0301a8c0>